N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,
v. W ILLIE C LIFTON,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10489

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00479-C R B -1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2018 * * Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, B EA, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. W illie C lifton (“ C lifton” ) a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for unla wful posse ss i o n o f a fire ar m i n v io la t ion of 18 U

. S.C

. § 922(g)(1). O n a ppe a l, C lifton a rgue s tha t the



# FIL ED
FEB 15 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m ously c onc l ud es t h i s cas e i s s ui tab l e f o r d eci s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).distric t c o urt e rre d whe n i t de nie d his m otion to suppre ss. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r

28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm

. 1 Offic e r Ve nz on prope rly se a rc he d C lifton inc ide n t to his a rre st. A n a rre st

oc c urs w he n, c on s id er ing t he “ tota lity of the c irc um s ta nc e s,” a re a sona

ble pe rson would ha ve be l ie ve d he o r she wa s not f r ee t o le a ve a fte r brie f que stioning. W ashington v . Lambe rt , 98 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th C ir. 1996); see Un i t ed State s v . Guzman

– Padilla , 573 F.3d 8 6 5 , 8 8 4 (9th C ir. 2009). Afte r le a rning tha t C lifton’ s lic e nse w a s suspe n d e d, Offic e r Ve nz on orde re d C lifton out of the c a r a nd ha ndc uffe d him a lm ost im

m e dia t e ly , e xpla ining tha t he wa s u n d er ar r e st. Onc e ha ndc uffe d, a
re a s ona ble pe rson in C lifton’ s c irc u m s t an ce s would ha ve be lie ve d “ inde finite

c ustodia l de te ntion [wa s] ine vita ble .” Guzman

–

Padilla , 573 F.3d a t 884 (c iting K raus

v . Pie rc e C

ty
. , 793 F.2d 1105, 1109 (9th C ir. 1986)). The s e a rc h tha t fo llowe d wa s the re fore la

wful. S e e Unite d State

s v . Edw ards , 415 U.S. 800, 802 (1974). Tha t is s o e ve n if C lifton wa s not a rre sted u n t i l af t er the se a rc h. A se a rc h inc i de nt to a rre st ne e d not pre c e de the a rre st; ra t he r, the c r i t ic a l inquiry “ is whe the r the se a rc h i s ‘ roughly c onte m pora ne ous with t

he a rre st.’ ” Unite d S

t ate s v . Smith , 389

1 The de nia l of a m o t ion to su p p r e ss is re vie we d d e novo, b ut the fa c tua l findings unde rly ing the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a re re vie w e d for c l e a r e rror. Unite d State s v . Mc Tie rnan , 6 9 5 F.3d 882, 887 (9th C ir. 201 2 ) ( ci ting Unite d State s v . C ase re s , 533 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th C ir. 2008)). 2F.3d 94 4 , 951 (9th C ir. 2004) (quoting Unite d State s v . Mc Laughlin , 170 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C i r. 1999)). He re , the a rre st a nd se a rc h we re not “ so se pa ra te d i n tim e or by inte rve ning a c ts tha t t

he la t te r c a nnot be sa id to ha ve be e n inc ide nt to t he form e r.” Id. (quoting Mc

Laugh l in , 1 7 0 F.3d a t 893). Thus, the m o tion to suppre ss wa s prope rly de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

3